OK, you're on:Although some instances of OT slavery can be described as "indentured servitude", I dare you, I DARE YOU to tell me that all descriptions of the Israelites and their slaves and war trophies are indentured servitude.And in Jesus' time, and in Paul's time when in his epistles he gives guidance on how to treat slaves, were those Roman epoch slave indentured servants?

Who's going for the quick rehetorical points, eh? Want to talk "scores"? Every Bible verse that refers to "endentured servitude" I'll give you 1 point. And every verse I find that refers to flat out classic slavery I'll take a point.Up for it?

thanks for the response. Didn't quite understand your comment on my blog, how does comment moderation reflect on my integrity? I'm a busy lad like yourself I imagine.

I'm thinking primarily of the picture in my comment, new world slavery which the picture has in mind was vastly different to what we would be talking about in regards to the Hebrews. We dealing with vastly different cultures, sensibilities and social settings. The pic frankly annoyed me but I suppose that's the point. Its late here but I shall be back tomorrow.

I appreciate your honesty in regards to the pic comparing Jesus to Horus, Mithras and Krishna...I start to lose nearly all respect for people who embrace such historically false garbage.

That stuff should have stayed in the intellectual dump of the 19th century where it was first discarded.

I find that many, many Christian bloggers hide behind comment moderation so that obly their fanbois' comments get through.

I presume by Hebrew indentured servitude you are referring to Exodus 21:6 and Leviticus 25:39-43, but I'm sure you appreciate that the Hebrews had different rules for slavery between Hebrews and slavery of other peoples.

There are many other instances in the Bible where it is clear that slavery as we commonly understand it, "new world slavery" to use your terminology, was also practiced. practiced and legislated for. The slavery in the above passages is very different to the slavery described in Leviticus 25:44-46. In these verses the Israelites are told that slaves taken from other nations are personal property, can be bought and sold and can be bequeathed to their children and are slaves for life.

As Canaan was conquered, and the cities fell, were all those captives taken indentured servants, or do you think they became slaves Dan?

You left the comment "Comparing indentured servitude to new world slavery is about as ignorant as you can be historically."

It's not just me making the comparison Dan, it's right there in Leviticus 25. Whoever wrote Leviticus is doing the comparison for us Dan, in verses 39-43 he describes your indentured servitude, and then in 44-46 he tells God's chosen people how to treat their "foreign" slaves.

Factually false Dan? Read it. The title of the blog post was "Biblical Morality"

You are just plain wrong, Dan.First in your New World model, are slaves never bought and sold? Were all American slaves captive from Africa? Or were they also the children of existing slaves, bought and sold? Compare that with the references I already cited in Leviticus 25:44-46.If it was forbidden for the Hebrews to take captives why does God tell them to do so in Numbers 31:17-18? Numbers 31:12 "and brought the captives". All through Joshua and Judges you can read of captives being taken from conquered cities.You have this mistaken notion that the slavery in the Bible is some kind of slightly harsh social service scheme, when a simple search on the words "slave", "slaves" and "captives" on biblegateway.com will show you otherwise.